A.E. Venkatesan v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC21 Feb 2025CRL OP/21590/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quash FIR; Section 145 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 B.N.S.S. Act 2023; abuse of process of law; title dispute; civil dispute wrongly made criminal; Revenue Divisional Officer order Na.Ka. No.797/2024/A2 dated 09.05.2024; Crime No.608 of 2024; Tiruttani; Thiruvallur District; Mathur Village; S.No.256/7; Patta No.431; unregistered sale deed Rs.2,00,000; liberty to approach Civil Court; Madras High Court; Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan; Crl.O.P. No.21590 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.608 of 2024 on the file of the second respondent quashed; third respondent given liberty to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief in respect of the subject property; connected Miscellaneous Petition (Crl.M.P. No.12353 of 2024) closed. ¶¶30

A.E. Venkatesan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.608 of 2024 registered under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by the second respondent, after the first respondent had already concluded Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings recording a title dispute over the subject property, is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be quashed.

¶¶27

Court's answer

On perusal of the records, the court found a clear title dispute in respect of the subject property between the petitioner and the third respondent.

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

Since a title dispute already exists, lodging the FIR under Section 145 Cr.P.C. once again and referring it to the first respondent would serve no purpose; the registration of the FIR is an abuse of the process of law, cannot be sustained, and is liable to be quashed.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the FIR in Cr.No.608 of 2024 on the file of the second respondent is quashed; the third respondent is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief in respect of the subject property in the petitioner's possession, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.), Crl.O.P. No.21590 of 2024, decided 21.02.2025: Quashing of FIR. The petitioner, in possession of property in S.No.256/7, Mathur Village, Thiruthani Taluk, sought under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. Act, 2023 quashing of FIR in Crime No.608 of 2024 registered under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by the Inspector of Police, Tiruttani, on a fresh complaint by the third respondent (A.K. Kuppan) claiming ownership. The Revenue Divisional Officer had already passed orders in Na.Ka. No.797/2024/A2 dated 09.05.2024 in prior Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings, recording that the property was owned by the third respondent and his brothers, that the petitioner had shown no registered title documents, and directing the complainant to the police; the FIR was nonetheless registered afresh and referred back. Holding that a clear title dispute existed, that re-registration of the FIR and referral served no purpose, and that the registration was an abuse of the process of law, the court quashed the FIR, allowed the petition, left the third respondent free to seek appropriate relief from the Civil Court, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.02.2025

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P. No.21590 of 2024 and Crl.M.P. No.12353 of 2024

A.E.Venkatesan

.... Petitioner

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirutani, Thiruvallur District.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶11

D1, Tiruttani Police station, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District.

¶12

3.A.K.Kuppan

¶13

.... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under 528 of the B.N.S.S. Act, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to impugned FIR in Crime No.608 of 2024 on the file of the 2 nd respondent and quash the same forthwith.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manohar

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D Muhulan

¶17

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 & R2 Mr.L.Ramu for R3.

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

O RDER

¶21

This Petition has been filed challenging the FIR registered in Crime No.608 of 2024 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on the file of the

¶22

second respondent.

¶23

2. The third respondent lodged a complaint claiming ownership of the property comprised in S.No.256/7, Patta No.431 situated at Mathur Village, Tirthani Taluk, which is in possession of the petitioner and stated that the petitioner is claiming to be the owner and refused to vacate the subject property. In this regard, already Section 145 Cr.P.C proceedings was initiated by the first respondent and passed orders in Na.Ka. No.797/2024/A2 dated 09.05.2024 stating that the property comprised in S.No.256/7 situated at Mathur Village, Thiruthani Taluk owned by one Velayutham, who is none other than the father of the third respondent. In turn, he had executed unregistered sale deed in respect of the property to an extent of 1520 sq.ft and subsequently, subdivided in S.No.256/1 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/and thereafter, the petitioner

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

developed the same by construction. Now, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property for several years. Further, the first respondent held that the property is owned by the third respondent and his brothers and the petitioner has not shown any registered documents to prove his title. Therefore, the third respondent has been directed to approach the concerned police for further action on the complaint lodged by him. Now the second respondent has registered the FIR under Section 145 Cr.P.C and referred the matter once again to the first respondent.

¶27

3. On perusal of records, it is clear that there is a title dispute in respect of the subject property between the petitioner and the third respondent. Therefore, the FIR under Section 145 Cr.P.C lodged once again and referral of the same before the first respondent would not serve any purpose. Hence, the registration of the FIR itself is an abuse of process of law and the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

4. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and FIR in Cr.No.608 of 2024 on the file of the 2 nd respondent is hereby quashed. The third respondent is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief in respect of the subject property which is in possession of the petitioner. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶31

21.02.2025

¶32

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order rkp To

¶33